Red, the point is.......the Laker fans bought into Hollinger's article that had the Lakers at the top of his list, with Boston a close second.......written like a true Laker fan... the problem is that one of his biggest stats to support his argument is the fact that the Lakers have the most wins in NBA history....followed by Boston... he conveniently forgets to mention that the Celtics have the winning record vs the Lakers throughout the history of the regular season (and it's not really close)... so how can a team that has a losing record all time, in both the regular season and the championship finals vs their chief rival possibly be better that that rival?....it just doesn't add up... throw in the Finals winning percentages vs the Eastern Conference in general and the Celtics in particular....well, as I said.....it makes no sense.....talk about putting a spin on a topic to prove your point.....winning counts.....Boston has been the better winner....'nuff said!Posted by Duke4

Naturally, I am a Celtics fan......BUT......."they" have been better more consistently. Losing Bias cost us a lot. Every franchise goes through it - but "they" seem to have avoided it, so far. This is the reason I feel they will not get Paul or Howard via trade......no one wants to deal with them. Let's face it, trading Gasol for anyone at this stage is ludicrous, even after his horrific playoff performance.....and trading Bynum and Odom for Howard and Arenas doesn't really make them that much better........and trading Bynum for Paul......leaves them a little "soft." I'm half hoping there is no season, to shut these people up. They will then see that, like the Yankees, they overpaid for talent and you have to watch the talent get old. They will still be good, just not great. After Bryant leaves.....they will have to rebuild. And remember, if there is no season this year, that means only TWO left in the Bryant-era.

The Los Angeles Lakers are currently valued as the second most valuable franchise behind the Knicks, that's only because of their economic power base, but are without peers when it comes to the GREATEST NBA franchise. Having contended for titles every decade (unlike boston lmao) their consistency, popularity, conference titles, most playoff wins, most playoff appearances are what has made the Los Angeles Lakers the greatest A big thank you to Dr Buss for continuing an amazing record!Posted by Laker-Nation32

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : The Celts had 1 more win than the Lakers in the 2011 playoffs. Just like the Celts have 1 more championship than the Lakers as of 2011. Actually the Celts lost while the Lakers quit. Big difference! Thanks for playing.Posted by Fiercest34

The Celts had 1 more win than the Lakers in the 2011 playoffs OK. That's what the Celtics have to count on nowadays...

As far as 1 more championship than the Lakers, that's not true when you count the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season. Hey, your words, not mine.

zzzzzzzzzz (to quote Laker trolls)............... the Lakers still have a losing record vs Boston in all time head to head match-ups... the Lakers also have an (embarrassing) 3-9 record vs Boston in the Finals.. the Lakers still have the most Finals losses... the Los Angeles Lakers still have a losing record in the Finals... Yep....that Laker franchise sure is number one...........Posted by Duke4

Sure is, 31 finals vs 21.

31-9 in conference finals vs 21-11.

Sure reaching the finals 10 more times is better than not reaching the finals at all. Didn't you see what Fierce said? The Celtics are now counting 1 more win in the 2011 playoffs as an edge over the Lakers.

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : The Celts had 1 more win than the Lakers in the 2011 playoffs OK. That's what the Celtics have to count on nowadays... As far as 1 more championship than the Lakers, that's not true when you count the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season. Hey, your words, not mine.Posted by MajicMVP

Excellent! Fierce is clearly inside your head. You're telling Celtic fans here the Lakers have the same number of championships as the Celtics because of what Fierce said?

If Fierce told you Dr. Jerry Buss eats dog pooh for lunch would you also believe him?

Face it, man, head to head the Celtics have more wins against the Lakers. In the regular season meetings the Lakers and Celtics had over the years the Celtics also have the edge. But if you want to believe the Lakers have 17 championships because Fierce is your basketball god then be my guest.

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Sure is, 31 finals vs 21. 31-9 in conference finals vs 21-11. Sure reaching the finals 10 more times is better than not reaching the finals at all. Didn't you see what Fierce said? The Celtics are now counting 1 more win in the 2011 playoffs as an edge over the Lakers. ONE MORE WIN!!!! So you tell me reaching the finals (albeit losing) means nothing. Fat chance!!!Posted by MajicMVP

9-3 head to head when the title is on the line....(.750 vs .250) Celtics .809 Finals percentage vs Lakers .516 (LA Lakers .423)

So when the title is not on the line, it's OK to lose? You advocate losing in the early rounds. Is that an honor to brag about? Why not? otherwise how can the Lakers had a -6 deficit against the Celtics in the finals yet the finally tally, by your own words, "sounds pretty even".

It means the Celtics simply wimped out earlier in the conference playoffs to avoid losing in the finals. I mean, keeping a great finals record is great if you can maintain that margin in overall titles, but you couldn't. So it simply means you aren't as successful in winning your conference.

Celtics own winning record all time during the regular season as well... Please explain how the Celtics have not historically been more successful....

Simple, your record in conference playoffs is much less successful, you won the conference only 21 times, conference finals record 21-11, a +10. Lakers are 31-9, +22.

You also have to bear the shame of missing the playoffs 16 times.

"But you consider an honor to make the playoffs?" you ask?

Not at all. Making the playoffs is not something to brag about, but then missing it is the ultimate shame. Just like doing 1+1 is not something to brag about, but NOT ABLE to do 1+1? what does it imply?

Remember, the overall tally, 17-48 vs 16-47, by your own words, "sound pretty even", so the Celtics 17 titles are no edge since they also had more failed seasons.

remember, this thread is all about why the Lakers are universally acclaimed as the NBA's greatest franchise....Posted by Duke4

There you go. Given their overall achievement sound pretty even to you, the Lakers' 31 conference championship can easily outdistance the Celtics' 21, not to mention the Celtics' ultimate shame of missing the playoffs 16 times.

Ask Kobe again whether he wants to get blown out in game 6 of the finals or in game 4 of the 2nd round.

No normal fan would rather see his/her team losing in the 2nd round than in the finals. Well, Celtics fans may be different as all they want is to maintain their 17-4 finals record. Losing to LeChoke in the 2nd round is better than losing to Dirk in the finals, that's for sure.

Since they didn't lose in the finals but in the 2nd round, do you really think that people would not remember that the Celtics lost to LeChoke? or do you think that people would forget that the Celtics failed in the 2010-11 season? or that the Celtics didn't participate in the 2010-11 season at all?

In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Excellent! Fierce is clearly inside your head. You're telling Celtic fans here the Lakers have the same number of championships as the Celtics because of what Fierce said? If Fierce told you Dr. Jerry Buss eats dog pooh for lunch would you also believe him?

Not at all. I can judge what Fierce said. If he incriminated himself, I'll pound on it. That's "using his own words against him", i.e. like a confession.

Of course, if he says what Buss eats (dog pooh), I'll just consider it part of flame war, with no credibility whatsoever.

So, he's been hooked on what he said back then, with no way getting off...

so how can a team that has a losing record all time, in both the regular season and the championship finals vs their chief rival possibly be better that that rival?....it just doesn't add up...

Simple, let me show you how to add up.

The NBA is a LEAGUE, not a two team duel. If the league consists of only the Lakers and the Celtics, then you have a case, but it isn't.

So the Lakers had a losing record vs the Celtics, yet still have the best record in history, what does it mean? it means the Lakers have a better record vs ROTL than the Celtics do. And when it's a league, it's the record vs the WHOLE LEAGUE that counts, not just against a particular team.

throw in the Finals winning percentages vs the Eastern Conference in general and the Celtics in particular....well, as I said.....it makes no sense.....

Sure it does. Since you only talk about the ****Eastern Conference****, look at the Lakers' success rate vs the Eastern Conference in postseason:

16 successes, 15 failures

How about the Celtics?

21 successes, 28 failures.

And I am not even counting the 16 times the Celtics failed to make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference.

Glad that you ONLY mentioned the Eastern Conference, not the Western Conference...

Majic, I admire your creativity.....but the bottom line is the Celtics have beaten the Lakers in both the regular season and in the Finals....by a wide margin...

the Celtics have more titles and a better Finals winning percentage...

what you conveniently forget to point out is the fact that, from the late '50's through the late '80's, the East was considered the stronger conference...while you continue to ignore the term "The Big Four", which was coined by the NBA beatwriters it is a fact that Boston, Philly, Milwaukee, (later Detroit) and the Lakers were considered to be the four best teams in the NBA during the '80's....do the math...the majority of great teams had to go head to head to make the conference finals....the Lakers had an easier time getting there....hell, the players even spoke openly about how great it was to get to the finals without having to exaust themselves during the playoffs.....in earlier years the best team out West (St Louis Hawks) shifted to the East so the league could put an expansion team in the West (Phoenix)

......your argument comes down to two neighborhood bullies......one gets in more fights and beats up more kids....but when he fights the kid across town he gets his a** kicked....then still brags that he has won more fights so he is the toughest dude....it doesn't add up....I don't expect you to agree with me.....you are a Laker fan (notice I said fan and not troll.....I respect your posts and even agree on many points....just not this one....)

Majic, I admire your creativity.....but the bottom line is the Celtics have beaten the Lakers in both the regular season and in the Finals....by a wide margin... the Celtics have more titles and a better Finals winning percentage... what you conveniently forget to point out is the fact that, from the late '50's through the late '80's, the East was considered the stronger conference...while you continue to ignore the term "The Big Four", which was coined by the NBA beatwriters it is a fact that Boston, Philly, Milwaukee, (later Detroit) and the Lakers were considered to be the four best teams in the NBA during the '80's....do the math...the majority of great teams had to go head to head to make the conference finals....the Lakers had an easier time getting there....hell, the players even spoke openly about how great it was to get to the finals without having to exaust themselves during the playoffs.....in earlier years the best team out West (St Louis Hawks) shiftet to the East so the league could put an expansion team in the West (Phoenix) ......your argument comes down to two neighborhood bullies......one gets in more fights and beats up more kids....but when he fights the kid across town he gets his a** kicked....then still brags that he has won more fights so he is the toughest dude....it doesn't add up....I don't expect you to agree with me.....you are a Laker fan (notice I said fan and not troll.....I respect your posts and even agree on many points....just not this one....)Posted by Duke4

you know Red? ...... this is going no where at this point....it is all rehashing beliefs by both sides who will never agree....so it's best for all to "agree to disagree" and move on I suppose...let's leave it as the two best teams and the greatest rivalry in NBA history....it is what it is.....and I have no problem with that.....